November 2009

New Funding Benefits Courts and Customers

by Judge Tari Eitzen and Judge Glenn Philips

Walk the courthouse hallway and see people filling out pro se forms on their laps, children fussing as their parents try to decipher the legalese. Open a courtroom door and see defendants appearing for arraignment without counsel. In another courtroom, count the number of unlawful detainer defendants waiting for their case to be called.

Point to what you hope is the right door for the non-English speaking person asking for help, knowing there is no interpreter available. Continue the post-termination review one more time, because the potential adoptive parents have become unemployed and they are having second thoughts about adopting a special-needs child.

We did not become judges to wrangle over budgets. We thought our work would be done from the bench, resolving disputes and making our communities safer and better places to live. But now we sharpen our pencils, meet with our local government executives, and try to figure out how to cut another percentage of a bare-bones budget.

It is human nature to curse the lack of resources and look for a place to assign the blame. We ask ourselves how can we provide access to the courts, a forum for the exercise of the rule of law, when we are facing furloughs of our staff and loss of critical programs. Our time and energy is diverted from what we were elected to do as we are forced to find ways to support the courts financially.

But those of us who were judges prior to 2005 know that though the financial situation seems grim, it would be much worse if it were not for the funding secured for the courts through the Justice in Jeopardy Initiative. The JIJ Report defined the problems: inadequate funding for trial courts and indigent defense, inequity in state and local responsibility of trial court funding, and convoluted revenue stream and accounting processes. Simply put, not enough money exists to do the job we are mandated to do.

In 2005, things started to happen. The Legislature passed HB 5454, which increased filing and other court fees; the increases split 46 percent to the state and 54 percent to the counties. The state devoted its entire share to court operations that directly benefited the counties in the form of judges’ salaries, parent dependency representation, criminal indigent defense, and civil legal aid for the poor, etc. In addition to receiving 100 percent of the state’s share of the filing fee increase ($12.7 million per biennium), local government also received $19.8 million per biennium in new revenue to the county and city general funds.

All together, the first biennium HB 5454 brought local governments $32.5 million. By 2008, the number was $78 million per biennium. In 2009, despite the financial chaos the Legislature faced, the courts kept 96 percent of the money.

So how does it look “on the ground?”

Indigent Representation

HB 5454 funding for indigent representation has provided significant relief to the counties and has helped the courts comply with constitutional and statutory mandates. In Yakima County, for example, dependency representation has gone from a part-time effort by contract attorneys to full-time representation by dedicated staffing and contracts. Judge Michael Cooper, of Kittitas County Superior Court, says the quality of representation in dependencies has improved vastly, thereby diminishing the complaints parents lodged about no one helping or listening to them. In Skamania and Klickitat counties, funds have been used to pay for investigators in indigent criminal defense cases, as well as public defender training and Westlaw service for the defenders.

Judges’ Salaries

Before JIJ and HB 5454, the state did not contribute to district and municipal court judges’ salaries. Now the state contributes about 19 percent, or $6.4 million per biennium.

Trial Court Improvement Accounts

When a county or city receives funding for district or elected municipal court judges’ salaries, the county is required to place an equal amount into a Trial Court Improvement Account (TCIA) to fund court improvements. Thanks to TCIAs, Clark County has a new Family Law Annex; Clallam County has a courthouse security officer; Columbia County has a video-conferencing system connecting the courtroom to the jail; Spokane County has audio-visual equipment and chairs in its jury assembly room, as well a website with forms; Kittitas County purchased ADA sound and recording systems and saved its drug court; Klickitat and Skamania counties made security improvements, adding drug court services and probation; Island County has imaging and projection equipment in its courtrooms; Jefferson County has an assisted listening system for its superior and district courts; and King County has translated criminal and family law forms into five languages and hired probation staff and an attorney to manage pro se litigants in family law.

Interpreters

More state funding for trial courts came in 2007 in the form of $1.9 million per biennium for interpreter costs. This created incentives for interpreters to become certified and provided financing for legally mandated language-assistance programs in our counties. Pacific County contracted for a full-time interpreter to handle all Spanish-language needs for a year at one flat fee; Chelan County has a new Spanish-language interpreter for its courts; and other counties indicate that availability of interpreters has lowered related court delays and transportation costs. Judge Robert McSeveney reports that JIJ funding was extremely helpful after interpreter costs in Kent Municipal Court shot up 150 percent from 2004 to 2008. Certified Interpreter Eugenia Munday of King County says before the higher pay, she often heard non-certified interpreters in the courtroom who interpreted “without making any sense.”

Guardians Ad Litem and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs)

For decades, the counties struggled to pay for mandated guardians ad litem for children believed to be abused or neglected. In 2005, there were approximately 3,000 children in Washington on a waiting list for a CASA. In 2007, the Legislature appropriated an additional $6 million per biennium so counties could hire CASA coordinators to recruit and manage the volunteer system and leverage those dollars. Now many smaller counties have CASA systems for the first time. Lewis County Juvenile Court Administrator Holli Spanski hired two CASA coordinators when the previous sole coordinator retired, saying, “For us, the new funding was vital.” On the other hand, Lewis County has no paid guardians ad litem or staff attorneys to speak for some 242 children who are subjects of dependency petitions each year.

Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Plan (FJCIP)

Over 40 percent of the cases filed in superior courts in Washington involve families, children, or domestic violence. More than ever, family law litigants are pro se. In 2008, $800,000 was appropriated for FJCIP grants. Eleven counties secured funding, most using the funds to hire a case manager. Spokane County produced an instructional pro se dissolution video, now posted on its website. Pierce County hired a court facilitator. Several courts, including Chelan County, have used the funds to transition from a rotation system to a one-child/one-judge system. “I have been impressed with how relatively small amounts of money pay big dividends in improving the justice system,” says Representative Ruth Kagi, a member of the Court Funding Task Force and prime sponsor of HB 2822, the Family and Juvenile Court Improvement legislation. Though the FJCIP funds were cut this past legislative session to $650,000, we can still “make courts work better for children and families,” she says.
 
ADA Access

In 2008, the Legislature provided funding for a full-time ADA access coordinator to advise courts on how to become more accessible. In that position, Carol Maher has developed a fact sheet which informs courts, among other things, that hearing-assisted headphones do not work with hearing aids, but that a $60 neck loop will provide the service the participant who is hard of hearing needs.

Our cities and counties were crippled under the weight of a faulty funding structure that for too long placed far too much financial responsibility on local government. We, as courts, have been coerced to identify funding sources to provide core mandated services to the people of Washington, though we know it is not the domain of the court to finance itself. But we are now on a path that will lead us to a fair balance of state and local financial responsibility for the trial courts.

Yes, our progress is slower than we want it to be, and we have a long way to go. But we have made impressive progress.

The BJA Court Funding Task Force set forth the basic principles of trial court funding in its December 2004 report: The judicial branch must maintain its role as a separate and independent branch of government whose role is to resolve cases and serve the community. Courts must have adequate and stable funding, and it is the responsibility of legislative bodies to fund the courts. Trial courts are not self-funding, and the state, having an interest in the effective operation of the trial courts, should contribute equitably to achieve a better balance of funding between local and state government.

We can achieve that balance and remain true to those principles. 

Spokane County Superior Court Judge Tari Eitzen is president of the Superior Court Judges’ Association. Kent Municipal Court Judge Glenn Philips is president of the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association.